What Bill of Rights are outdated and should be eliminated?

It's not the rights that are outdated, it's the way some people interpret them.

The 18th

Amend Civil Rights laws to open Charter Communities which are neigborhoods, streets, malls, small towns, etc. open only to certain open criteria based on physical, religious, income, background, or whatever affiliations.

The US has done the above in it's colony of Israel since the 1940s period.

There's no reason why we should not be able to do the same in the U.S. as long as it's done fairly and non-abusively.

The Bill of Rights is fine. We should get rid of the 26th Amendment. If you can't drink, you shouldn't vote.

DunceCap wrote:

What about all the violence prevented by defensive gun use?

It's clearly not working given that people in Britain can't defend themselves with guns and only 6-7 people are shot dead a year.

Bill of Rights? More like "Bill of here's the only things you can do. We liberals have taken away all of your other freedoms - and trust us, the 10 rights that still exist will be taken away soon."

What about all the violence prevented by defensive gun use?

Son, I'm 55 years old. I have never, nor do I know anyone who has ever, needed a gun to protect themselves.

I'm not against guns, I'm against idiotic reasons to justify the right to own them.

Seriously, how many people do you now who have used a gun to defend themselves against some random attacker while walking down the street?

Confounding Fathers wrote:

I suspect the separation of Church and State would disappear and the right to bear arms would become "the duty to bear arms".

Separation of Church and State is actually from the Courts interpretation to a degree and various leaders (beginning with Jefferson). In reality, the separation of Church and State is not 100% true and was not meant to be true.

The text of the First Amendment related to religion states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I think there should be some new amendment that basically says that Corporations are subservient to human beings. It didn't get a lot of attention. But the spectacle of Rand Paul saying that the American govt owes an apology to Apple Inc is absurd. I like to think 50 years from now Americans are going to look at that see the insanity of our times.

snowfall runner wrote:

Also, would you replace the eliminated ones with new ones?

i'd call for Genetic Heritage Settlements which admit only those folks of a prescribed genetic mix, however defined. Zulu, Aryan, Tahitian, Aztec, etc.

Add a clause that makes service in the armed forces mandatory for all. Two years of service would go a long way towards equalizing the load borne by a few for freedom in our society. Also limit CEO pay. It's out of control. The wage and income disparity is a big problem we face in society. Did the founding fathers envision this? Probably, but not on the scale we see today.

The threat of an armed insurrection is the ultimate check and balance. That is true in Iowa and New Jersey. The second amendment is not about hunting, or about street crime. It is the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Not a year goes by, somewhere in the world, where some despot gases, or bombs, or otherwise exterminates their own citizens. That does not happen in the USA.

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

The threat of an armed insurrection is the ultimate check and balance. That is true in Iowa and New Jersey. The second amendment is not about hunting, or about street crime. It is the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Not a year goes by, somewhere in the world, where some despot gases, or bombs, or otherwise exterminates their own citizens. That does not happen in the USA.

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

The threat of an armed insurrection is the ultimate check and balance. That is true in Iowa and New Jersey. The second amendment is not about hunting, or about street crime. It is the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Not a year goes by, somewhere in the world, where some despot gases, or bombs, or otherwise exterminates their own citizens. That does not happen in the USA.

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

The threat of an armed insurrection is the ultimate check and balance. That is true in Iowa and New Jersey. The second amendment is not about hunting, or about street crime. It is the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Not a year goes by, somewhere in the world, where some despot gases, or bombs, or otherwise exterminates their own citizens. That does not happen in the USA.

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

The threat of an armed insurrection is the ultimate check and balance. That is true in Iowa and New Jersey. The second amendment is not about hunting, or about street crime. It is the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Not a year goes by, somewhere in the world, where some despot gases, or bombs, or otherwise exterminates their own citizens. That does not happen in the USA.

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

fdsdfasdf wrote:

They're all outdated. In fact, the Constitution is near 250 years old, it's about time we rewrote the whole thing.

This will never happen. It was written so it never had to be. With the Amendment process. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it can be amended, but not amended easily. If something in it is deemed that bad then the votes will be there to pass it. As has been proven many times before.

* Get rid of the 2nd Amendment

* Get rid of the 10th Amendment

* Change the first to give freedom from religion, not freedom of religion

Repeal the part of the 1st amendment that says spending money is the same thing as talking.

Then again, it's mostly women who do both, so the supreme court may have a point.